In a recent decision, the Tribunal of Monza (23 October 2014) ruled that super-priority status can be denied if it is established that (i) professional duties were not properly performed or (ii) the concordato proved to be useless or detrimental for the creditors.

The Case

In the Schmid case the European Court of Justice ruled on the issue of jurisdiction of the Courts of a Member State ofthe EU where an insolvency procedure was commenced, whose receiver started a claw-back action against a defendantdomiciled in a non-Member State

The Case

The Tribunal of Milan with a decision of 12 June 2014 took a stand which is in sharp contrast with mainstreamcase-law, with respect to clauses – widely used as common practice in distressed assets deals as part of“concordato preventivo” restructurings based on an interim lease of business period while the insolvencyproceeding is pending – allowing the lessee to apply rental fee payments to the final purchase price of the business,once the “concordato” is confirmed and the sale can take place

Introduction

Change of name

Choice of law

Introduction

With judgment No. 10105 of 9 May 2014, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that trusts can be recognized inItaly, when the settlor is insolvent, only if they are consistent with the purposes of the procedure.

The Case

With judgment No. 5945 of 11 March 2013, the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation addressed a key issue under EC Regulation No. 1346/2000: the location of the “center of main interests” (COMI) of the company according to factors recognizable by third parties.

The Case

The Court of Milan with a decision on 28 May 2014 addressed some heavily debated legal issues: the Bankruptcy Courtmay authorize the debtor to terminate credit facility agreements when the debtor submitted a pre-filing for concordato preventivo (known as “concordato con riserva”)?

The Case

On August 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit^[1] delivered a stern admonition about the risk of failing to appeal when it ruled that a union that had not filed a notice of appeal could not benefit from a successful appeal by another union in the same matter.

On June 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals¹ vacated a District Court’s dismissal order and resuscitated a bankruptcy appeal brought by a group of litigation creditors seeking recourse against the debtors post-confirmation.² The Third Circuit opinion is an important reminder to both debtors and creditors that the doctrine of “equitable mootness” has limits and that confirmation of a plan does not preclude review of post-confirmation actions inconsistent with obligations in the plan.